A Homeowner's battle

When representatives of New London, Conn., offered to buy Susette Kelo's home in 1998, the registered nurse didn't have to think long. "It's not for sale," she says. But the city wouldn't take no for an answer and invoked its power of eminent domain to try to remove her from her home. The economically distressed community wants Kelo's land, part of a 90-acre plot along the Thames River, for a mixed-use development.

The same tune is being played out in other states, as fiscally strapped municipalities look to big-box retailers and high-end housing developments to help raise taxes and create jobs, even if it means displacing churches, schools, and landowners. But Kelo and some of her neighbors are trying to thwart the trend.

"Major impact." The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Kelo's claim, along with those of other property owners, this week. It is the last chapter in a long fight through state courts. The property owners contend they are constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment from having their land condemned for economic development purposes. "This case will have a major impact either way it is decided," says Wesley Horton, of Horton, Shields & Knox, who represents New London.

The Fifth Amendment states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation." The definition of "public use" has evolved over the years; although the Supreme Court handed down decisions on eminent-domain laws in 1954 and 1984, public use is still defined loosely enough that state legislatures enforce it to varying degrees. New York City used eminent domain to develop Lincoln Center and the World Trade Center and to improve Times Square. But a key 1980 Michigan case involving General Motors that established economic development as a public use was reversed last summer. Land-use lawyers are hoping the Supreme Court will finally clear the air with its decision in the Kelo case.

"Everybody's home would create more tax revenue if it was a Wal-Mart," says Scott Bullock of the libertarian Institute for Justice, which is representing the plaintiffs. "The eminent-domain power is being abused in outrageous ways. It puts every home- and small-business owner in jeopardy."

The New London case is especially controversial because the property in dispute is not considered blighted, a state of irreversible deterioration that some states have set as the threshold for invoking eminent domain. Pfizer has already built a research facility next to the plaintiffs' neighborhood, and New London officials hope the development will attract employees and visitors to the area.

Horton says that if the Supreme Court requires evidence of blight before government can invoke eminent domain, most economic development projects around the country would come to a halt. "Sometimes a public purpose for land may be best accomplished by private developers," he says.

But Kelo doesn't agree. She and her husband bought their two-bedroom, pink cottage with river views in 1997. Besides the fact that she couldn't afford another waterfront home, she says, the development corporation hasn't disclosed what it plans to do with her land. "I never said I didn't want them to build their development," she says. "They have more than enough room to do what they want to do. But they don't even have a plan for my block."

Horton says the city plans to develop in phases, and Kelo's land is not part of the first phase. Some property lawyers anticipate that the Supreme Court will require developers to commit to a definitive plan for property before seizing it.

Meanwhile, much of Kelo's neighborhood has been bulldozed. She is hopeful she will continue to call it home, even if it's not the neighborhood she moved into. "I have faith the courts will do the right thing," she says. Even if her tiny house is surrounded by an office park, she'll still have her river views to come home to.